PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 104-390.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 8, 1995
Permits local residents who are descendants of Katmai residents who lived within the boundaries of Katmai National Park, Alaska, subject to reasonable regulations established by the Secretary of the Interior, to continue their traditional fishery for red fish in the Naknek Lake-Naknek River and Brooks River and Iliuk Arm within such Park.
People & committees
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 104-390.
By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 104-390.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 596.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8679-8680)
Mr. Calvert moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 356.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 104-687.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 104-687.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1213)
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1786 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1786 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1786 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1786 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.